Department of Social Development Proposes Changes to SRD Grant Application

The Department of Social Development is proposing changes to the Social Assistance Act, including removing questions about the income of applicants for the R370-a-month Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant.

• The Department of Social Development proposes removing questions about income from the Social Relief of Distress grant applications.
• Advocacy groups #PayTheGrants and the Institute for Economic Justice have argued that the questions are unconstitutional and exclude eligible applicants.
• Public comment on the proposed changes is open until Monday, 14 April.

The Department of Social Development (DSD) is proposing changes to its Social Assistance Act, which includes removing the questions about income in the application of the R370-Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant.

The proposed amendments are open for public comment until Monday, 14 April.

The grant is available to people who get less than R625 per month, with the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) conducting monthly checks on applicants’ bank accounts to ensure they continue to meet this criterion.

At present, people who apply for the SRD grant for the first time are required to answer questions about their current income and whether they get any financial support from friends and family. This is to test their eligibility for the R370-a-month grant.

They are asked: “How do you usually obtain your basic necessities on a monthly basis?”, “Where do you get money to support yourself if there is no R350 grant?”, and “How much money did you receive in the last month, including gifts, assistance from anyone, donations, dividends, earnings from formal or informal employment, but excluding the grant?”

In 2024, the #PayTheGrants campaign and the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) took the department to court, challenging the SRD grant regulations. They asked the court to declare the questions about income unlawful and unconstitutional.

The IEJ and #PayTheGrants argued that the definitions of “income” and “financial support” used by the government in these questions were too broad. In court, they proposed that “income” should refer only to regular earnings from employment or business, and “financial support” should be limited to regular payments to the applicant. The current interpretation, which includes once-off gifts or child support grant payments, unfairly disqualifies people who are in genuine need, they argued.

In his judgment on the SRD grant case in January, Judge Leonard Twala ruled that the regulations limiting access to the grant are unconstitutional and invalid. The court ordered the government to increase the grant amount and the income threshold to qualify for it.

Twala also ordered that the definition of “income” be changed to include only regular payments from formal or informal employment, business activities, or investments, excluding once-off payments or gifts. Twala did not declare the screening questionnaire unlawful.

The DSD, SASSA, and the National Treasury have said they intend to appeal against the entire judgment.

The IEJ told GroundUp it is consulting with its legal team on the proposed amendments to the SRD grant’s regulations.

Nathan Taylor from #PayTheGrants said the group would make a submission on the regulations. He criticised the timing of government’s proposed changes, saying it was “left until the last minute, preventing time for genuine comment and consultation, and increasing the likelihood of issues in the April to May approval and payment cycles”.

While welcoming the proposed removal of the screening questions — which he described as “inhumane, unnecessary, and potentially discriminatory” — Taylor said the proposed amendments failed to address deeper problems. “Nothing else changes, the [regulations] remain the same,” he said.

Taylor said the recent court ruling had shown that the SRD grant’s design “harms and excludes the most vulnerable”. He said the department had again “refused the opportunity to genuinely address these issues or understand the people it serves”.

© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.